Ukku Banda V. Karupai Et Al.,

1923.  Present: De Sampayo A.C.J, and Garvin A. J.

UKKU BANDA v. KARUPAI et al.

404-D. C. Kurunegala, 8,301.

Estoppel by conduct-Puisne incumbrancer not bound by decree against mortgagor present at execution sale-Is he estopped from asserting his title ?

To establish an estoppel by conduct by silence, the person who is sought to be estopped by reason of his silence must be proved to have intended to create a false impression on the person who sets up the estoppel, and that he caused him thereby to do a particular act.

Where a puisne incumbrancer who was not bound by a mortgage decree (he not having been made a party to the action or noticed) was present at the execution sale and was silent; held in the circumstances of the case he was not estopped from asserting his title.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

H.V. Perera (with him Weerasinghe), for first defendant, appellant. Soertz  for plaintiff, respondent.

July 2, 1923. DE SAMPAYO A.C.J.-

This appeal raises a question of estoppel by conduct. The second defendant was the owner of one-third share of Galwalagawahena. By bond dated August 2, 1911, Tie mortgaged this share

Click Here to Read the rest of this document